Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Final account

Legal area

Court

23 May 2025

GLOBAL BUILT SDN BHD WONG YEN FENG (T/A LKL CEILING ENTERPRISE)

Citation

WA-24C-176-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-176-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that (1) the adjudication claimant was a natural person trading as LKL Ceiling Enterprise and thus had capacity despite business registration issues; (2) the adjudicator had considered the Final Account and the parties' submissions and did not breach natural justice; (3) the adjudicator correctly applied section 35 CIPAA to reject reliance on a back-to-back pay-when-paid clause; and (4) section 15(b) CIPAA precludes court review of the adjudicator's merits, therefore the application to set aside the adjudication was dismissed and the enforcement application allowed.
30 Aug 2024

EASTMONT SDN BHD MEGA PLANNER JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-51-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SoFA returned signed and not disputed within the applicable PAM contractual dispute period (Clause 26.6/30.10) and is therefore final; Plaintiff proved entitlement to outstanding works, materials and variation sums on balance of probabilities; Defendant's counterclaim for LAD and rectification is both time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 and estopped by laches and Defendant failed to prove causation and quantum for alleged pile damage, so counterclaim dismissed.
25 Jun 2024

Bolt Industries Sdn Bhd Itramas Re Services Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12BC-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-3-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found Defendant proved entitlement to deduct RM42,930 for the 53 damaged PV modules (admitted by Plaintiff) but failed to prove entitlement to deduct RM54,351.12 as liquidated damages and RM18,800 as third‑party completion costs; delay was attributable to Defendant so LAD was not payable; Defendant had not shown actual payment to third party or that Plaintiff had been paid for those missing works; hence Plaintiff entitled to recover RM73,151.12 (RM54,351.12 + RM18,800.00) with 5% interest from 20.7.2019; costs to be borne by parties themselves.
6 May 2024

CHARTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-160-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-160-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held there was no breach of natural justice and no clear and unequivocal error: the adjudicator addressed and applied his mind to the principal issues (Final Account and DLP), the Final Account was prima facie conclusive under the contract, and alleged omissions were peripheral or would not alter the adjudicator's outcome; accordingly the applications to set aside and to stay were dismissed and the adjudication decision was enforceable and ordered as a judgment under s28 CIPAA.
6 May 2024

AMALAN SETAR (M) SDN BHD CHARTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-175-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-175-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no breach of natural justice nor clear and unequivocal error by the adjudicator: the adjudicator addressed the principal issues, relied on the Final Account and admissions, and any alleged omissions were peripheral and not material to the decision. Consequently the applications to set aside and to stay the adjudication decision failed and the adjudication decision was enforceable and ordered to be given effect as a judgment with payment of the adjudicated sums, interest and costs.
1 Jun 2023

WIN-LEAD AIR CONDITIONING SDN BHD SRICOOL ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-22-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-22-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the Appellant failed to show entitlement to challenge deductions it had accepted in payment certificates and failed to prove that variation claims were authorized, verified and payable under the contract; consequently the Session Court's allowance of the final account and dismissal of the counterclaim was correct.
13 Dec 2021

MARVELANE HOME SDN BHD SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-44-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-44-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sunshine's payment claim expressly disclosed a contractual cause of action; the adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction under s27 and did not exceed it; any technical non-compliance with s5 was cured by s26; clause 25.4(d) is a conditional payment provision void under s35(1) and cannot be relied upon; there was no material breach of natural justice; no basis to exercise s16 discretion to stay enforcement; accordingly the setting aside and stay applications are dismissed and leave to enforce the adjudication decision is granted under s28 with costs to Sunshine.
30 Oct 2020

MYDA RISK & SAFETY SDN BHD SYARIKAT MUHIBAH PERNIAGAAN DAN PEMBINAAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-B52NCVC-24-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCVC-24-01/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Invoices were not conclusive under the sub‑contract which expressly makes quantities provisional and subject to remeasurement; the defendant's audit and remeasurement by a qualified, supervised team was reasonable and properly documented; the plaintiff failed to adduce rebuttal evidence to displace the defendant's findings; consequently the defendant's recalculation was accepted and the plaintiff's substantive claim for RM722,422.37 failed, but nominal damages of RM30,000 and costs of RM10,000 were awarded; no contractual or statutory basis for interest at 1.5% per month was found.
30 Sept 2020

PBLT SDN BHD PRESTASI REKA SDN BHD & 3 LAGI

Citation

WA-22C-70-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-70-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Final re-measurement and revaluation performed by a qualified quantity surveyor using as-built drawings verified by the consultant civil engineer were accepted as compliant with contract; specific disputed variation valuations and backcharges were resolved on evidence and contractual valuation rules; First Defendant failed to substantiate prolongation/loss claims and did not comply with contractual notice/evidence requirements; Second Defendant was entitled to direct payment under sub-contract clauses and the parties' undertaking and alternatively under s.71; accordingly judgment for Plaintif…
30 Jun 2019

SONKEH ENGINEERING SDN BHD SUMITERAS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCVC-279-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-279-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance of probabilities that Defendant breached the LOA by failing to pay undisputed progressive claims; contemporaneous documents and admissions showed Defendant did not dispute the claims and had gone missing after handover; G17/form issues were Defendant's responsibility or unpleaded as defence; Plaintiff entitled to RM950,270.68, interest and costs and indemnity for TYEE claim.